Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 1920 – 16 April 1958)[1] was a British biophysicist and X-ray crystallographer who made critical contributions to the understanding of the fine molecular structures of DNA, RNA, viruses, coal and graphite.[2] The DNA work achieved the most fame because DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) plays essential roles in cell metabolism and genetics, and the discovery of its structure helped scientists understand how genetic information is passed from parents to children.

Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA which led to discovery of DNA double helix. Her data, according to Francis Crick, was "the data we actually used"[3] to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA.[4] Franklin's X-ray diffraction images confirming the helical structure of DNA were shown to Watson without her approval or knowledge. Though this image and her accurate interpretation of the data provided valuable insight into the DNA structure, Franklin's scientific contributions to the discovery of the double helix are often overlooked. Unpublished drafts of her papers (written just as she was arranging to leave King's College London) show that she had independently determined the overall B-form of the DNA helix and the location of the phosphate groups on the outside of the structure. However, her work was published third, in the series of three DNA Nature articles, led by the paper of Watson and Crick which only hinted at her contribution to their hypothesis.[5]

Although during their years in Randall's laboratory at King's College Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins often behaved like enemies, twelve years after Franklin's death Wilkins in effect apologized for passing on her photographs and data to Watson without her permission: 24

It [the DNA research] was all here [at King's]. They [Watson and Crick] were working at Cambridge along certain lines, and we were working along certain lines [at King's]. It was a question of time. They could not have gone on to their model, their correct model, without the data [Rosalind] developed here. They had that—I blame myself, I was naïve—and they moved ahead.79

Unfortunately for Franklin, she never lived to hear his words of regret. But Wilkins' words support the objective argument that he was wrong to secretly take Rosalind Franklin's work, that James Watson was wrong to encourage and benefit from the unauthorized taking, and that at the very least Watson and Wilkins should have properly credited Franklin's part in the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule.

The best part is that they explicitly went behind her back to steal her data. They knew that she had solved the problem and they asked her if she wanted to collaborate (i.e. give them her data), and she refused. Watson went and whined to Wilkins, who stole her work and gave it to the people who went on to wrongfully win the Nobel Prize.

At 8/24/2012 9:40:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 1920 – 16 April 1958)[1] was a British biophysicist and X-ray crystallographer who made critical contributions to the understanding of the fine molecular structures of DNA, RNA, viruses, coal and graphite.[2] The DNA work achieved the most fame because DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) plays essential roles in cell metabolism and genetics, and the discovery of its structure helped scientists understand how genetic information is passed from parents to children.

Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA which led to discovery of DNA double helix. Her data, according to Francis Crick, was "the data we actually used"[3] to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA.[4] Franklin's X-ray diffraction images confirming the helical structure of DNA were shown to Watson without her approval or knowledge. Though this image and her accurate interpretation of the data provided valuable insight into the DNA structure, Franklin's scientific contributions to the discovery of the double helix are often overlooked. Unpublished drafts of her papers (written just as she was arranging to leave King's College London) show that she had independently determined the overall B-form of the DNA helix and the location of the phosphate groups on the outside of the structure. However, her work was published third, in the series of three DNA Nature articles, led by the paper of Watson and Crick which only hinted at her contribution to their hypothesis.[5]

Although during their years in Randall's laboratory at King's College Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins often behaved like enemies, twelve years after Franklin's death Wilkins in effect apologized for passing on her photographs and data to Watson without her permission: 24

It [the DNA research] was all here [at King's]. They [Watson and Crick] were working at Cambridge along certain lines, and we were working along certain lines [at King's]. It was a question of time. They could not have gone on to their model, their correct model, without the data [Rosalind] developed here. They had that—I blame myself, I was naïve—and they moved ahead.79

Unfortunately for Franklin, she never lived to hear his words of regret. But Wilkins' words support the objective argument that he was wrong to secretly take Rosalind Franklin's work, that James Watson was wrong to encourage and benefit from the unauthorized taking, and that at the very least Watson and Wilkins should have properly credited Franklin's part in the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule.

I read 'DNA: The Secret of life' few years ago. As far as I remember, Watson discusses the rivalry with Franklin in detail. I guess it must have been hard on her - losing out in the race to unlock DNA pattern, while her own data contributed in part to the discovery. However I don't think it is correct to consider her a hapless victim. Crick and Watson did crack the DNA structures themselves.

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

At 8/24/2012 9:45:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:The best part is that they explicitly went behind her back to steal her data. They knew that she had solved the problem ...

Wrong. She had not solved it completely. The last part was actually done by Crick and Watson.

... and they asked her if she wanted to collaborate (i.e. give them her data), and she refused. Watson went and whined to Wilkins, who stole her work and gave it to the people who went on to wrongfully win the Nobel Prize.

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

At 8/24/2012 9:45:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:The best part is that they explicitly went behind her back to steal her data. They knew that she had solved the problem ...

Wrong. She had not solved it completely. The last part was actually done by Crick and Watson.

She had the beta form done and she was just about to finish the alpha form. Unpublished manuscripts prove this.

... and they asked her if she wanted to collaborate (i.e. give them her data), and she refused. Watson went and whined to Wilkins, who stole her work and gave it to the people who went on to wrongfully win the Nobel Prize.

At 8/24/2012 9:45:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:The best part is that they explicitly went behind her back to steal her data. They knew that she had solved the problem and they asked her if she wanted to collaborate (i.e. give them her data), and she refused. Watson went and whined to Wilkins, who stole her work and gave it to the people who went on to wrongfully win the Nobel Prize.

All four of them deserved the Nobel prize. She would have received it as well had she not passed away before it was awarded.

At 8/24/2012 3:55:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:She had the beta form done and she was just about to finish the alpha form. Unpublished manuscripts prove this.

How's it their fault if the woman was too slow? o.O

It was intellectual property theft . . .

Yup, Ms. Pirate.

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

At 8/24/2012 9:45:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:The best part is that they explicitly went behind her back to steal her data. They knew that she had solved the problem and they asked her if she wanted to collaborate (i.e. give them her data), and she refused. Watson went and whined to Wilkins, who stole her work and gave it to the people who went on to wrongfully win the Nobel Prize.

I'm not sure it's "they explicitly went behind her back", most who knew him say that wasn't something Crick would do. Watson on the other hand, was exactly the type, aside from being brilliant, he didn't have a lot of redeeming qualities. He was known to be rude, self absorbed and arrogant, a proponent of eugenics who advocated eliminating undesirables such as homosexuals, racist, misogynistic, candidly prejudiced against overweight people, apparently the only people skill he really had was a knack for associating with older scientists like Crick who could help him advance his career.

Based on the elementary principle of "miserable excuse for a human being", I say we blame Watson.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 8/24/2012 3:55:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:She had the beta form done and she was just about to finish the alpha form. Unpublished manuscripts prove this.

How's it their fault if the woman was too slow? o.O

It was intellectual property theft . . .

Yup, Ms. Pirate.

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.

At 8/24/2012 3:55:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:She had the beta form done and she was just about to finish the alpha form. Unpublished manuscripts prove this.

How's it their fault if the woman was too slow? o.O

It was intellectual property theft . . .

Yup, Ms. Pirate.

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.

Ah, how noble and just your thievery is for it furthers your personal education, while their thievery is cruel and contemptible as all it did was allow for the largest breakthrough in the field of genetics at the time...

It's bad enough your house is glass, but you went ahead and built it on sand too.

At 8/24/2012 3:55:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:She had the beta form done and she was just about to finish the alpha form. Unpublished manuscripts prove this.

How's it their fault if the woman was too slow? o.O

It was intellectual property theft . . .

Yup, Ms. Pirate.

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.

The amount of hypocrisy in this post is amazing.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 8/24/2012 3:55:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:She had the beta form done and she was just about to finish the alpha form. Unpublished manuscripts prove this.

How's it their fault if the woman was too slow? o.O

It was intellectual property theft . . .

Yup, Ms. Pirate.

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.

At 8/24/2012 3:55:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:She had the beta form done and she was just about to finish the alpha form. Unpublished manuscripts prove this.

How's it their fault if the woman was too slow? o.O

It was intellectual property theft . . .

Yup, Ms. Pirate.

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.

The amount of hypocrisy in this post is amazing.

worthy of a signature.

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

What I am doing is not hypocritical at all. They stole her data without her permission. It did not belong to them and she did not give it to anybody else so she never ceded her claim on it. I, however, download books that others have purchased/legally obtained from their peers and wish to share with the rest of the world. The property rights to those materials belong to the people who distribute the information to me, and not to the original owners.

You can sig me if you want, but it's pretty stupid to do so unless you understand the context . . .

At 8/24/2012 3:55:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:She had the beta form done and she was just about to finish the alpha form. Unpublished manuscripts prove this.

How's it their fault if the woman was too slow? o.O

It was intellectual property theft . . .

Yup, Ms. Pirate.

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.

Ah, how noble and just your thievery is for it furthers your personal education, while their thievery is cruel and contemptible as all it did was allow for the largest breakthrough in the field of genetics at the time...

That breakthrough would have happened anyways since she was already working on it. In fact, some sources indicate that her paper was received by the publisher a day before their paper was.

At 8/25/2012 4:04:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:What I am doing is not hypocritical at all. They stole her data without her permission. It did not belong to them and she did not give it to anybody else so she never ceded her claim on it. I, however, download books that others have purchased/legally obtained from their peers and wish to share with the rest of the world. The property rights to those materials belong to the people who distribute the information to me, and not to the original owners.

Nope, intellectual property.

You can sig me if you want, but it's pretty stupid to do so unless you understand the context . . .

At 8/25/2012 4:04:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:What I am doing is not hypocritical at all. They stole her data without her permission. It did not belong to them and she did not give it to anybody else so she never ceded her claim on it. I, however, download books that others have purchased/legally obtained from their peers and wish to share with the rest of the world. The property rights to those materials belong to the people who distribute the information to me, and not to the original owners.

Nope, intellectual property.

That's a rather simplistic understanding of IP law.

If Royal downloads Robinson Crusoe, she isn't claiming that not only did SHE write Robinson Crusoe, but anyone who tries to download or sell the book owes money only to her and not Daniel Defoe's estate.

Watson and Crick weren't simply copying her data, they were denying the source of their data and claiming it as original.

We would be having an entirely different discussion if Watson and Crick used her data without permission but credited her for it. Then online pirating for self-education would be relevant.

At 8/25/2012 4:05:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:My education, however, will not occur anyways.

Well thats debatable.

And, there is possibility that her may not have gotten the publicity it could have, or couldn't have gone through.

So, no, it might not have gone through anyways.

You need to read history. Her paper was published third. The only reason that Watson and Crick knew about her data in the first place was that it was generating excitement due to lectures given by her boss. So yes, it would have gone through.

And yours could continue anyways by you earning the money

I've applied to 41 jobs this summer. I've been hired by a total of 0 people. A bunch of old people and people who were fired from their jobs are taking the work that I should be getting.

, or asking to borrow from your parents.

I wish I didn't have to do this. I'm not going to explain why, however.

At 8/25/2012 4:05:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:My education, however, will not occur anyways.

Well thats debatable.

And, there is possibility that her may not have gotten the publicity it could have, or couldn't have gone through.

So, no, it might not have gone through anyways.

You need to read history. Her paper was published third. The only reason that Watson and Crick knew about her data in the first place was that it was generating excitement due to lectures given by her boss. So yes, it would have gone through.

Not necessarily, stuff happens.

Still, I think they were thieves, and I'm glad we give her the credit today. Trust me, everyone in my school knows how she was stolen from and stuff.

But you can't call what they did bad while stealing from someone else at the same time. It's hypocritical, and I love how you try to justify it.

And yours could continue anyways by you earning the money

I've applied to 41 jobs this summer. I've been hired by a total of 0 people. A bunch of old people and people who were fired from their jobs are taking the work that I should be getting.

So, now your entitled to a job? And, maybe you need to apply for more. I dunno, but that doesn't justify stealing.

, or asking to borrow from your parents.

I wish I didn't have to do this. I'm not going to explain why, however.

I know you have issues with your parents. But, still you should use every alternative before stealing, and even then, not stealing is still better.

At 8/25/2012 4:04:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:What I am doing is not hypocritical at all. They stole her data without her permission. It did not belong to them and she did not give it to anybody else so she never ceded her claim on it. I, however, download books that others have purchased/legally obtained from their peers and wish to share with the rest of the world. The property rights to those materials belong to the people who distribute the information to me, and not to the original owners.

Nope, intellectual property.

That's a rather simplistic understanding of IP law.

If Royal downloads Robinson Crusoe, she isn't claiming that not only did SHE write Robinson Crusoe, but anyone who tries to download or sell the book owes money only to her and not Daniel Defoe's estate.

What? My point is she is stealing from someone, by taking an illegal version of someone else's product, for free. It's irrelevant what she says is hers or not, but that she stole it.

Watson and Crick weren't simply copying her data, they were denying the source of their data and claiming it as original.

We would be having an entirely different discussion if Watson and Crick used her data without permission but credited her for it. Then online pirating for self-education would be relevant.

At 8/25/2012 4:05:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:My education, however, will not occur anyways.

Well thats debatable.

And, there is possibility that her may not have gotten the publicity it could have, or couldn't have gone through.

So, no, it might not have gone through anyways.

You need to read history. Her paper was published third. The only reason that Watson and Crick knew about her data in the first place was that it was generating excitement due to lectures given by her boss. So yes, it would have gone through.

Not necessarily, stuff happens.

Still, I think they were thieves, and I'm glad we give her the credit today. Trust me, everyone in my school knows how she was stolen from and stuff.

But you can't call what they did bad while stealing from someone else at the same time. It's hypocritical, and I love how you try to justify it.

And yours could continue anyways by you earning the money

I've applied to 41 jobs this summer. I've been hired by a total of 0 people. A bunch of old people and people who were fired from their jobs are taking the work that I should be getting.

So, now your entitled to a job?

Absolutely. How else am I supposed to live? I can't live off my parents forever.

And, maybe you need to apply for more.

After applying to 41 jobs and receiving no replies except for from 5 people who reject you, you give up :/ "Keep applying" doesn't solve my problems. I'm lucky my parents are supporting me right now. What if they weren't? I would be starving to death.

It's clear that I can't get low-end jobs. I need education to get the higher-end ones.

I dunno, but that doesn't justify stealing.

, or asking to borrow from your parents.

I wish I didn't have to do this. I'm not going to explain why, however.

I know you have issues with your parents. But, still you should use every alternative before stealing, and even then, not stealing is still better.

If I had to choose between not stealing and dying and stealing and living, I would contend that it would be more moral to steal.